Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jacob van Ruisdael/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2015.

Jacob van Ruisdael

 * Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Jacob van Ruisdael was a Dutch Golden Age landscape painter. I adopted the article a few months ago when it was lacking references. With the help of I got it to GA status recently, following suggestions from the helpful. This is my first FAC. Comments will be very much appreciated. I hope you enjoy reading about this old master, whose works may or may not have deep meaning. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Brianboulton
Welcome to your first FAC, and I hope you don't find the experience too daunting. While the article generally looks in good shape, I am a little concerned by the extent of under-referencing. Specifically:
 * The final paragraph of the "The later years" lacks citations
 * The entire "Attributions" section is uncited
 * At least half-a-dozen paragraphs in the text end with uncited statements
 * Information contained in footnotes needs to be cited on the same basis as main text.

These comments arise from a very superficial survey of the article, but they should be attended to as soon as possible. I will try to find time to add more substantive comments as the review proceeds. Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words. I'm sorry for under-referencing. I have started adding citations already and will continue after work tonight. In quite a few cases it is a matter of moving the sfn to the end of the paragraph, so I'm not daunted by the task. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed the final paragraph of "The Later years" altogether. Parts of it were covered in Legacy and Interpretation. I added references to "Attributions", end of paragraphs and footnotes. I had to rephrase one sentence in "Attributions" a bit as I couldn't find a reference for the sweeping statement of old masters sometimes not signing. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

 * Certainly way better than it used to be, but still needs some work.
 * I agree with Brian re under-referencing. The version you started work on in May was old EB with a dash of tonic. Some of it survives little changed, eg the coverage of his etchings, & should either be improved or referenced there.
 * Rewrote the etchings bit, and added references. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In particular the lead contains several points that don't recur below and should be referenced. Some of these have issues.
 * "was the pre-eminent Dutch Golden Age painter of landscapes." no ref, and I'm not sure "pre-eminent" a good word - many if not most would consider Rembrandt's few landscapes a greater achievement, Cuyp has probably always been more expensive, and so on. Many would prefer other landscapists.
 * Pre-eminent came from Slive's intro to the 2006 exhibition, but I dropped it altogether. I could add 'influential', as I do think some indication of excellence is needed to distinguish him from say Cornelis Vroom or Nicolaas Berchem. What do you think? Edwininlondon (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree something is needed, and I see Slive also uses "pre-eminent" at the start of the Getty "Windmills" book. Since it can be referenced so well, maybe stick with it. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "In 1650 he travelled to the German border and started painting monumental scenes." no ref, & reads oddly, as though he set up his easel at the frontier. "Monumental" needs explaining or changing - his paintings became no larger than before I think, but rather more dramatic and proto-Romantic, which I suppose was meant. Monumental is a tricky and overused word in art history, "The most overworked word in current art history and criticism" according to Peter and Linda Murray.
 * Monumental came from Slive 2006, but I have removed it and rewritten both the lead sentence and the Middle years section. :Edwininlondon (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Unlike the other great Dutch landscape painters, he did not aim at a pictorial record of particular scenes..." no ref, & very dubious, both because many Ruisdaels, especially the views of cities, do give "a pictorial record of particular scenes", and also because nearly all the major Dutch landscapists used invented scenes, the Italianate ones such as Cuyp, Berchem, Pynacker and Both far more obviously than Ruisdael. Even the townscape painters, painting cities their patrons lived in, were very ready to adjust street compositions for artistic effect.
 * Removed it altogether. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ".. but he thought out and arranged his compositions carefully, introducing into them an infinite variety of subtle contrasts in the formation of the clouds, the plants and tree forms, and the play of light." - didn't they all? Paddling, or padding.
 * Removed it as well. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead is 5 paras long, which someone will no doubt complain about; here there seems no need. The article in general has some too-short and perhaps some too-long paras (I have merged a few). The one-para "Interpretation" section certainly needs splitting.
 * Shortened lead to 4. Split up Interpretation. Any other ones that specifically bother you?  Edwininlondon (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a near-contradiction between the lead "one of several artists who painted figures in Ruisdael's landscapes, something he rarely did himself." and "Later years", "Figures are sparingly introduced into his compositions, and are by this period no longer of his own hand[F]" - the latter I suspect the better formulation. And elsewhere "Thirdly, it seemed that sometimes two artists would work together on one painting, not only by one adding small figures to the landscapes of the other, but more prominent figures as well,.." - here the uncertainty is not needed, as this was very common across Europe.
 * Good catch. Removed it from the lead and the Attribution section. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "but which can be attributed to a specific style (twisted trees, windmills, waterfalls, dunescapes, seascapes, winter landscapes, and panoramas, all with and without figures painted in by others)." - hmm, use of "attributed" here, these are mostly "subjects" not a style, the list is so long it is hardly very "specific", and not really specific to Haarlem.
 * I removed it. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In general the prose could do with a polish.
 * I miss more on his individual style, and some placing of his work in the busy context of other Dutch Golden Age landscapists. Ruisdael is traditionally regarded as belonging to the "classical" style or phase of Dutch landscape painting, a concept that should be introduced. Also things like the generally low status, and prices, of landscape painting, versus the advantage of being able to paint for "stock" rather than wait for commissions, as most painters had to do.
 * Will get references for his individual style and placing him in context, eg juxtapose against the Italianate landscapists. Do you happen to have any references handy for the low status and paint for stock? Edwininlondon (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The status certainly, I'll look re the convenience. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * More later. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added a bit more context about stock and commissioning. I have found some sources about prices, which will be next. Meanwhile, any more suggestions for improvement? Edwininlondon (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this edit is a step in the wrong direction frankly. Some things need to be said. This addition is good, although the lower status of landscape painting generally not covered (I can provide on this). The "classical phase" not mentioned yet. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've put pre-eminent back, as well as prolific and versatility. Made his uncle famous again to stand out from father and cousin. I agree some things need to be said. I am glad you liked the addition to Context, about the art market at the time, although I do want to get better references for it, so any help much appreciated. If you could provide something about low status of landscapes as well, that would be great, thanks. I did add something about classical and tonal, towards the end of Legacy. Or do you mean that should be mentioned in the lead? Edwininlondon (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil
First of all, thanks for all your work in bringing this here. Not familiar with van Ruisdael, but it seems the major points are touched. I think the lead is fine now, wouldn't trim further, and the works are wonderfully illustrated. My concern is slightly overwrought prose, which at times seem dated, have reworded a few instances. Remaining examples include "tells of", "the city of Amsterdam" and "dominating mountain scenes appear", other phrases that might need tending - "magnificent view", "phenomenal production" and "cleverly concentrating". Have not looked at the sources yet. Ceoil (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed the specific points you list. But I have a feeling there is more prose you find overwrought. Let me know how else I can make it better. Thank you. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Noting the ongoing improvements in the last week, will come back to this soonish....Its looking much better. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage
Welcome to FAC! I believe that creation of curated content is one of the most important and potentially enjoyable activities on the project. I often focus on evaluating reference use and reference formatting, which I realize isn't the fun part of article development for most editors. In general, the literature surveyed is fairly comprehensive, although I'll offer a couple of other sources as options. There's no burden to include them if they don't add anything further: Neutral on article promotion as I have not examined prose at this time. Few of the referencing problems will require significant effort to correct. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The page is throwing a LOT of harvard reference errors when viewed with an analysis script. Check to make sure everything in the bibliography has a reference defined (such as |ref=harv). That will clean up some, but not all, of the errors. Bredius is cited with a 1911 date in the note but a 1915 date in its bibliography entry. Watson appears unused in the text.
 * You use a mix of cite family templates and citation templates in the bibliography. These format their entries somewhat differently, especially as regards punctuation. You should stick with one or the other (I prefer the cite templates, but that's entirely a matter of editorial discretion). You can probably most easily convert the Oud Holland references to cite journal if you take this approach.
 * English-language book titles need to be in Title Case. See Bakker and Webb, for example. Foreign-language titles do not obey this rule.
 * As you've opted to include publisher locations, you need to include a state or country, as appropriate, for anything but the short list of internationally-recognized cities (that list is ... somewhere in our Manual of Style, but I can never find it when I need it). London and New York, for example, do not need further specification, but places like Farnham and Leuven certainly do.
 * Foreign-language sources always need their language specified. Bredius, for example, needs to indicate that it is in (I think) Dutch.
 * If some of the pre-ISBN books have OCLC numbers available, their inclusion is recommended.
 * Check what punctuation is used to separate subtitles for some cited works. Israel 1995, for example, seems to generally be styled with a colon rather than a dash of any sort. If a dash is definitely used, it needs to be a spaced endash or unspaced emdash, per WP:MOSDASH.
 * Be careful with authors vs. editors, especially for large reference works. Muller is the editor of Dutch Art: An Encyclopedia, not its author. In this particular case, the individual entries have their own authorship, and so should be cited more specifically.
 * ISBNs should ideally be presented as properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s. I thought that was the case here already, but it looks like Reenen and Wijnands needs converted.
 * Slive 2006 is not properly formatted.
 * Hofstede de Groot and Smith are formatted differently in a manner that makes me suspect Smith should have its formatting changed.
 * Does Stechow have a publisher?
 * Wijnman is incompletely cited; it needs page numbers (and, ideally, an issue number, if one was assigned). Compare to the other Oud Holland entries.
 * Check compliance with WP:EL; I suspect there are more external links provided here than really necessary.
 * Thanks very much for such detailed comments. I certainly learned a lot while fixing the issues, which I hope I have now. I shall make sure I will do it right for the two sources you mention below, of which the botanical one seems very good to add, I will write something about Jacob's realism. Thanks again. Edwininlondon (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there anything of value in Alois Riegl's 1902 monograph on Ruisdael, or, alternatively, in this scholarly article discussing Ruisdael and Riegl?
 * This article (available in full here) suggests he was historically significant for his depiction of botanically-accurate trees, which may be worth noting.
 * The tree paper is certainly worth including - Slive makes the same point more briefly in his Yale/Penguin Dutch Painting. Thanks for finding this. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have referred to it in the Early years section, as the tree paper shows that's when he painted the trees mostly in close-up, while later he painted them too far away to be identified. BTW, I found an interesting paper, in Dutch unfortunately, about one of those trees being accurately depicted in the dunes painting Duinen aan zee, but according to this author Ruisdael made them appear there, while they actually grow in other habitats. http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/567303 This gets too technical to mention in the article, but it aligns well with the Bentheim castle high on a hill top being evidence for composition over photographic. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I struggle to get Riegl's work in. It just feels too technical. Would require a whole paragraph, which feels too much. Any more suggestions I can work on to make you change your Neutral stance? Edwininlondon (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by an IP

 * "During his early phase, the Haarlem years, starting in 1646, Ruisdael predominantly painted Dutch countryside scenes, of, for a teenager, remarkable quality." This is a mouthful. Is there a way to minimize the commas?
 * "Waterfalls feature often in his oeuvre." Almost a jargon and would benefit the readers by providing a link.
 * "His work was in demand in his home country during his lifetime, and afterwards in England as well" To minimize the use of "his", "his home country" should be changed to the name of the country itself, which would now parallel the use of "England"
 * "His work was in demand in his home country during his lifetime, and afterwards in England as well, and today it is spread across private and institutional collections globally, with the National Gallery in London, the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, and the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg each holding more than a dozen of his creations." Another mouthful of a sentence. A period perhaps after "England as well"?
 * There just a lot of images incorporated in the layout, affecting the placement of subheaders etc etc.
 * Thank you for spending time making suggestions. I have addressed each point I believe. I removed two images. Since they are referenced in the text I will ask Jane023 to add them to the list of images at the bottom, pulling out two images not referred to in text. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. Good luck! --124.107.75.38 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Iridescent
These are mostly minor nitpicks, rather than reasons to oppose. Note that I intentionally haven't read the comments above to try to come at it without preconceptions, so there may be some repetition. I know nothing about him, so am taking it on faith that the print sources are accurately represented.
 * Thank you for your minor nitpicks. Very much appreciated. I like you method of avoiding bias. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There seem to be a lot of broken citations (install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors and you'll see them highlighted);
 * Thanks so much for pointing me into the direction of this tool. If only I had found this earlier. I have updated all and see no errors anymore. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's some text sandwiching between images, even at fairly standard-width displays; I know it's unavoidable with left-right staggering on very wide screens, but I'm getting sandwiching even at quite narrow widths. This isn't something I'd oppose over, but some of the MOS purists may take exception to it;
 * I removed his father's painting and the Doughty one. This should reduce the effect quite a bit, hopefully sufficiently. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What does "The canvasses of early work like this are remarkably large for an inexperienced painter" mean? There's no correlation, as far as I know, between the experience of the artist and the size of works (other than that canvas was expensive and a struggling artist might not be able to afford large pieces of it).
 * I haven't been able to find any other references about canvas size and starting painters in the 17th century, so I made it a quote for the time being. It seems to me there is something significant going on, and I shall try to find a source for whether it is financial or confidence or anything else. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Following his travels, which helped him gain a broader view of nature and widened the horizon of his art" appears to directly contradict "it seemed he travelled relatively little"; from the Life section, it appears there's no evidence he ever left the Netherlands;
 * I clarified that Bentheim is in Germany. I'm not sure there is a contradiction. He travelled to a few places. The border area is very different from the Haarlem area. He gained a broader view. Do you think I need to say that the border area is very different? Edwininlondon (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say it needs to be clearer what the range of his travels were. Especially in the context of an artist, to me "his travels … helped him gain a broader view of nature and widened the horizon of his art" implies some kind of Grand Tour, but if I understand the article there's no evidence he ever travelled more than around 200km from Amsterdam. (Sure, the geography and architecture of the Dutch-German border is different to that of North Holland, but not that different compared to Venice, Paris or the Swiss Alps.) &#8209; iridescent 08:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. Certainly no grand tour. So I rewrote it to avoid any inferences: "Following his trip into Germany .." Edwininlondon (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "The castle is not actually on a hill" appears to be directly contradicted by the first line of Bentheim Castle, which describes it as a hill castle, as well as by their own website which describes it as "a hilltop castle";
 * Rephrased to avoid a debate of what constitutes a hill, and now focussed on it being shown at various heights. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I know we're all supposed to love Wikidata and all who sail in her, but I think the auto-generated Notable paintings is a major problem; as far as I can tell, the criteria for "notable" is "has an entry on Wikidata", which is undesirable unless you're either going to ensure every work is included, or Wikidata has a specific set of criteria for determining notability in this context. As regards artists, "notable works" should be those which at least one significant critic have determined to be notable, and a list of this nature should probably also include a note as to why they're considered notable. Including this section also bloats the article to an unreasonable length for anyone trying to print it out;
 * I removed it. I see that other FA articles of painters do not have a notable paintings section, for instance El Greco. I will however try to get some more images in, without creating a sandwich problem again. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this makes sense; basically, all you need is to be sure you have at least one representative picture from each phase of his career and each style he worked in, as well as anything discussed in detail in the article. People who want the complete works can follow the external links. &#8209; iridescent 08:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Between the first and second sections, we go from the non-committal "there is no record of any trip to Scandinavia" to the decisive "He never went to Scandinavia". One or the other should be stuck with; do we know for certain he never went, or do we just not have a record of his movements?;
 * Clarified. I added reference of when van Everdingen went to Scandinavia. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There seem to be some subjective value judgements stated as fact ("is seen as his grandest", "an admirable interior", "Indisputable proof of Ruisdael's extraordinary creative power", etc. If these are claims by particular critics, we should say so; we shouldn't be saying in Wikipedia's voice that any given thing is good or bad (whatever the work, there's bound to be someone who dislikes it);
 * Grandest now attributed to Slive; admirable removed; remarkable removed; extraordinary rephrased. I think I've got them all now. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the context for the claim "Constable also copied various Ruisdaels as acts of homage"; did he specifically say this? Copying artworks by other artists (either as an exercise in working in an unfamiliar technique, or as a memento of a visit to a collection) was an absolutely standard practice by English artists in this period, and doesn't necessarily imply any particular admiration;
 * I understand your concern, but in this case Slive 2001 in Appendix 2, dedicated to Constable's copying of Ruisdael, describes Constable's admiration, and actually uses the word homage. But Constable did not specifically write the word homage. It is Slive's interpretation. Anyway, I rephrased it, avoiding the word homage. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of inappropriate contractions (couldn't, isn't);
 * Fixed. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "[Ruisdael] was an influence on the Hudson River School, for instance Thomas Doughty" isn't backed up by the source provided, which doesn't mention Doughty once and is doubtful for the claim that he influenced the Hudson River School (the only mention of the HRS is "The Hudson River School painters infused their frontier Edens with something of his theatrical grandeur", but doesn't specifically say they were consciously imitating him). Hudson River School doesn't mention his name once, and says they were inspired by Lorrain, Constable and Turner, which seems far more likely; why would an artist like Doughty, who was born and lived in Philadelphia, even be aware of Dutch landscape painting?;
 * I have removed the Hudson School altogether for the time being, while I'll try to get better sources. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For someone whose style is supposedly so unique and gifted, if this article is to be believed there appear to be an awful lot of other artists from the period whose work is mistakenly attributed to him. I appreciate there may not be sources for this, but do we know why, if he had such a unique style, so many works by his relatives, pupils and copyists have been successfully passed off as his?;
 * Yes, that is puzzling. I guess the root cause is money. But I have no sources. Would be good to find some, even about similar problems with Rembrandt or Vermeer. If you come across any, let me know. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He was much imitated. The "uniqueness" did not last, as with Rembrandt and other major imitable artists. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes www.artble.com a reliable source? I can't see any attribution anywhere, but it looks like a user-generated wiki;
 * Better reference supplied (Slive 2001) Edwininlondon (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes www.essentialvermeer.com, which appears to be a hobbyist site, a reliable source? &#8209; iridescent 12:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be better. The site is written by Jonathan Janson (painter) and the opening line there says he is an art historian. But I shall attempt to find book sources.  Edwininlondon (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, there is no consensus for promotion on this occasion. Graham Beards (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.